Cited by 274Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Ready for eHealth? Health professionals' acceptance and adoption of eHealth interventions in inpatient routine care

Hennemann, Severin, Beutel, Manfred E., Zwerenz, Rüdiger·2017·Journal of Health Communication

Abstract

eHealth interventions can be effective in treating health problems. However, adoption in inpatient routine care seems limited. The present study therefore aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to acceptance of eHealth interventions and of online aftercare in particular in health professionals of inpatient treatment. A total of 152 out of 287 health professionals of various professional groups in four inpatient rehabilitation facilities filled out a self-administered web-based questionnaire (response rate: 53%); 128 individuals were eligible for further data analysis. Acceptance and possible predictors were investigated with a complex research model based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Acceptance of eHealth interventions was rather low (M = 2.47, SD = 0.98); however, acceptance of online aftercare was moderate (M = 3.08, SD = 0.96, t(127) = 8.22, p < .001), and eHealth literacy was elevated. Social influence, performance expectancy, and treatment-related internet and mobile use significantly predicted overall acceptance. No differences were found between professional and age groups. Although acceptance of eHealth interventions was limited in health professionals of inpatient treatment, moderate acceptance of online aftercare for work-related stress implies a basis for future implementation. Tailored eHealth education addressing misconceptions about inferiority and incongruity with conventional treatment considering the systemic aspect of acceptance formation are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2017.1284286

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hennemann, S., Beutel, M. E., & Zwerenz, R.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Hennemann, Severin
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Published
2017-02-19
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
274-284
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
OpenAlex
W2587843908
Cited by
274
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
26.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Illa and Werner Zarnekow Foundation (T225-22.771)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
digital health interventions, healthcare workers, technology acceptance, inpatient care, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, digital health literacy, barriers and facilitators, inpatient rehabilitation, occupational stress, social influence, performance expectancy
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Telemedicine, Health Care Surveys, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review